Any telephoto zoom 4/3 Lenses for E-M1 that are much better than similar m4/3?

DonSC wrote:

I have the m.43 75-300 and I don't think I can pull the detail he got in his shot. I do think the Panny 100-300 is about the same as the Oly m.43 75-300.

In some ways it's very hard to tell since, as mentioned, you have different birds and, more importantly, different lighting. Pulling detail from a bird with white feathers is almost as hard as pulling it from a bird with black feathers.

All sorts of differences of course, and it's impossible to tell based on incomparable test shots which gear is actually superior. But to my eyes, the 100-300 stands up well in this particular case. And there are other things than the feathers to look at. The eye and the beak for example. You might also want to have a look at the chipmunk here (a less noisy version than the one I posted my mistake in my reply to drj3 above):

When I look at these shots and then the comparison shots of the books on the shelf as well as the moon, it looks to me that the 50-200 has a decent advantage. Even with the TC the 43 lens is pulling a lot more detail.

Not what I want to see but it looks as if this is what we're seeing.

Anders W wrote:

The other big difference is that the 50-200 has mechanically linked focus (focus distance shown in lens widow - focus ring stops at 3.9 ft and infinity) which make pre-focusing (which I always do) easy and very fast so I can always pre-focus on the E-M1 even though there is no CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF on the camera (critical for BIFs).

Not sure I follow you here. Did you mean to say the E-M5 rather than E-M1?

No, the E-M1 does not have a CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF option.  Only SAF+MF option.  I am not sure why it is not an option and I always pre-focus BIFs.  CAF+MF was an option on the E5.  It does not matter with the 50-200 SWD version with mechanically linked focus, but does with the first 50-200 and the SHG lenses which focus by wire.

I just responded to a different thread on this forum where the poster said that one should to keep the shutter speed up to 1/1000 on mFT cameras for hand held sitting bird photography with the Olympus 75-300 at 300mm.  Is this really necessary with mFT lenses or just a precaution in case the bird moves or is very active?  I have no problem hand holding the EC14+50-200 down to as low as 1/80 second, other than a problem with the bird moving.  I do normally use 1/400-1/640 unless I have a bird that is ignoring me, in which case I will start with the higher shutter speed and then keep taking images while lowering the shutter speed in steps to 1/80 to increase the aperture and decrease the ISO in the hope of getting a better photograph.

drj3 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The other big difference is that the 50-200 has mechanically linked focus (focus distance shown in lens widow - focus ring stops at 3.9 ft and infinity) which make pre-focusing (which I always do) easy and very fast so I can always pre-focus on the E-M1 even though there is no CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF on the camera (critical for BIFs).

Not sure I follow you here. Did you mean to say the E-M5 rather than E-M1?

No, the E-M1 does not have a CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF option. Only SAF+MF option. I am not sure why it is not an option and I always pre-focus BIFs. CAF+MF was an option on the E5. It does not matter with the 50-200 SWD version with mechanically linked focus, but does with the first 50-200 and the SHG lenses which focus by wire.

Thanks. I didn't know.

I just responded to a different thread on this forum where the poster said that one should to keep the shutter speed up to 1/1000 on mFT cameras for hand held sitting bird photography with the Olympus 75-300 at 300mm. Is this really necessary with mFT lenses or just a precaution in case the bird moves or is very active?

In my experience 1/1000 is overkill. I have managed tack-sharp results at 1/250 and 1/320 with the 100-300 at the long end. But at these shutter speeds, I won't nail it every time and if I go lower than 1/250, the chance of tack-sharp results is virtually zero. This is a shutter-shock issue. I can't go lower than 1/250 on a tripod either, even with long anti-shock enabled. Of course, the problem eventually disappears in tripod-based shooting, so if I go down to 1/20 or so, I can get full sharpness again.

I have no problem hand holding the EC14+50-200 down to as low as 1/80 second, other than a problem with the bird moving. I do normally use 1/400-1/640 unless I have a bird that is ignoring me, in which case I will start with the higher shutter speed and then keep taking images while lowering the shutter speed in steps to 1/80 to increase the aperture and decrease the ISO in the hope of getting a better photograph.

-- hide signature --

drj3

DonSC wrote:

Agree with Anders that 1/1000 is a somewhat silly number to be throwing out. Of course a lot depends on how you're situated. Standing in a gale on a rock is way different than sitting or being well braced without any wind. Generally I can go 1/300 without breaking too much of a sweat. I have gone down to 1/100 but that's getting a bit dicey, though I'm sure there are folks who could do that without any problem as well.

For me the grip is worth at least one, maybe even two, stops. When I first got the 75-300 I was using the E-M5 and the results were pathetic. LOL I think every other shot was blurry.

It's all a learning experience.

I try to lean against something when possible (more important as I get older), but generally find lower shutter speeds give better results as long as the bird (or I) do not move. Of course that is a major problem since birds frequently move. Maybe the grip (always attached) and the extra 500+ grams of the lens helps. It does get the camera lens combination weight up into the smaller crop DSLR range. My keeper rate will be much lower at 1/125 second due to bird movement, but the images I get tend to be better (increase in shallow depth of field, less noise, and better sensor resolution), than at higher shutter speeds. I do always start at a faster shutter speed, to be sure to at least get the image and then progressively lower it if the bird stays (I always photograph wildlife with shutter preferred mode). If it is a very active small bird then I tend to keep it up in the 1/500-1/640 range.  I may try to see how low a shutter speed I can use with the much lighter FTs 70-300 to see if I need a much higher shutter speed with a light lens.

DonSC wrote:

I've never heard this before and based on my experience with TCs it seems unbelievable. Even a 2X TC wouldn't degrade the image by that much. Just thinking about it, the 50-200mm is only ten or fifteen percent better in the center than the m.43 75-300mm, and when you add the 1.4 TC to the 50-200mm I don't see the image being any worse than what you get from the 75-300mm.

It's the laws of physics. The only thing the TC can do is to magnify the original image circle. When you magnify the image circle (and do it perfectly, all TCs are not perfect regrettably), the resolution of the lens as measured in lp/mm falls in direct proportion to the magnification (and stays constant for the image circle as a whole, but we are using only part of it now). What helps a bit in counteracting the problem is that the crop of the lens image that you are effectively dealing with utilizes the full resolution of the sensor and the image resolution is of course a product of lens as well as sensor resolution.

See here if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter

I'm the other poster advocating fast shutter speeds, and now you have me at least questioning that!  Even though I appreciate the IS, I've defaulted to 2x lens focal length for all my birds, probably that is overkill with IS enabled. It looks like tomorrow will be a good time to test that!

Thanks,

I like shooting long lenses and have played around with vintage lenses (including "famous" ones like Minolta 200mm f2.8 and Nikkor AIS 105mm 2.5)  as well as native M.Zuiko 40-150. I recently picked up a ZK 50-200 MK1 and was amazed at how much better it was than any other telephoto lens I had tried.  The differences are not subtle and after I got this lens I sold all my other ones.  Yes its huge, and on my E-pm2 the AF is slow to unusable, but the speed of the lens (It really can be used wide open and in fact I think IQ is best wide open) and the details, sharpness, lack of CA's (which I believe adds more to the magic "pop" than most believe) make for stunning images.

I am sure the new native M43 telephoto lenses are going to be better but you can pick up a used ZK 50-200 for $400 - $600 and enjoy it in the mean time.

50-200 for $400- $600 and enjoy it while you are waiting.

DonSC wrote:

I was thinking this is what you were using. I just think it's very misleading.

In what way are the laws of physics misleading?

It's like saying that uprezzing an image by 50% degrades the quality by 50%.

It does in exactly the way expected. The resolution per millimeter declines by 50%.

I think this is more realistic: http://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters

As I said, the fact that the sensor resolution stays constant and image resolution is a function of both lens and sensor resolution may make the problem less significant.

Note however, that this is for the case where we are comparing a lens to itself, with and without TC. When we are comparing a lens with 1.4x TC with another lens without TC, the lens with TC has to be 1.4 times better in order to match the lens without.

Anders W wrote:

DonSC wrote:

I was thinking this is what you were using. I just think it's very misleading.

In what way are the laws of physics misleading?

It's like saying that uprezzing an image by 50% degrades the quality by 50%.

It does in exactly the way expected. The resolution per millimeter declines by 50%.

I think this is more realistic: http://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters

As I said, the fact that the sensor resolution stays constant and image resolution is a function of both lens and sensor resolution may make the problem less significant.

Note however, that this is for the case where we are comparing a lens to itself, with and without TC. When we are comparing a lens with 1.4x TC with another lens without TC, the lens with TC has to be 1.4 times better in order to match the lens without.

Another thing that should be kept in mind when making these comparisons is that the TC will be using the best part of the image circle of the lens it is mounted to. For example, when you mount a 2x TC, it's a bit like when using an FF lens on MFT. You are just using the first half of the diameter of the image circle. This also helps make up for some of the loss due to the magnification.

drj3 wrote:

DonSC wrote:

Agree with Anders that 1/1000 is a somewhat silly number to be throwing out. Of course a lot depends on how you're situated. Standing in a gale on a rock is way different than sitting or being well braced without any wind. Generally I can go 1/300 without breaking too much of a sweat. I have gone down to 1/100 but that's getting a bit dicey, though I'm sure there are folks who could do that without any problem as well.

For me the grip is worth at least one, maybe even two, stops. When I first got the 75-300 I was using the E-M5 and the results were pathetic. LOL I think every other shot was blurry.

It's all a learning experience.

I try to lean against something when possible (more important as I get older), but generally find lower shutter speeds give better results as long as the bird (or I) do not move. Of course that is a major problem since birds frequently move. Maybe the grip (always attached) and the extra 500+ grams of the lens helps. It does get the camera lens combination weight up into the smaller crop DSLR range. My keeper rate will be much lower at 1/125 second due to bird movement, but the images I get tend to be better (increase in shallow depth of field, less noise, and better sensor resolution), than at higher shutter speeds. I do always start at a faster shutter speed, to be sure to at least get the image and then progressively lower it if the bird stays (I always photograph wildlife with shutter preferred mode). If it is a very active small bird then I tend to keep it up in the 1/500-1/640 range. I may try to see how low a shutter speed I can use with the much lighter FTs 70-300 to see if I need a much higher shutter speed with a light lens.

The problem I had with the 75-300 before I changed to 50-200: that it was a very demanding combination of two factors: low weight and slow aperture

• below 1/400s shutter speed, the keeper rate falls drastically not because of ordinary motion blur, instead the lens shows some signs of shutter shock. I had to repair this quite often with focus magic (4 pixels vertical blur)
• Keeping the shutter speed above 1/500s while having max aperture 6.7 is very demanding and I often had to raise ISO to 800 or even 1600. Which does not help getting tack sharp photos ...

The heavier 50-200 is much easier to handle: 4 times faster aperture und blur-save down to 1/200s. All in all the lens needs 10 times less light.

Christof

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

DonSC wrote:

I've never heard this before and based on my experience with TCs it seems unbelievable. Even a 2X TC wouldn't degrade the image by that much. Just thinking about it, the 50-200mm is only ten or fifteen percent better in the center than the m.43 75-300mm, and when you add the 1.4 TC to the 50-200mm I don't see the image being any worse than what you get from the 75-300mm.

It's the laws of physics. The only thing the TC can do is to magnify the original image circle. When you magnify the image circle (and do it perfectly, all TCs are not perfect regrettably), the resolution of the lens as measured in lp/mm falls in direct proportion to the magnification (and stays constant for the image circle as a whole, but we are using only part of it now). What helps a bit in counteracting the problem is that the crop of the lens image that you are effectively dealing with utilizes the full resolution of the sensor and the image resolution is of course a product of lens as well as sensor resolution.

Many lenses out-resolve sensors today, so magnifying the projection (by less than two) hardly tells on the quality of the image. From my experience at least, with TC's and lenses I used.

Even if the lens "outresolves" (has higher resolution than) the sensor (which is a tricky thing to decide, especially since the lens doesn't have any resolution unless you specify a contrast criterion), a loss of lens resolution affects the image resolution negatively. A good approximation of how lens and sensor resolution actually combine into image resolution is

1/i = sqrt(1/l^2 + 1/s^2)

where i is image resolution, l is sensor resolution, and s is sensor resolution.

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

DonSC wrote:

I've never heard this before and based on my experience with TCs it seems unbelievable. Even a 2X TC wouldn't degrade the image by that much. Just thinking about it, the 50-200mm is only ten or fifteen percent better in the center than the m.43 75-300mm, and when you add the 1.4 TC to the 50-200mm I don't see the image being any worse than what you get from the 75-300mm.

It's the laws of physics. The only thing the TC can do is to magnify the original image circle. When you magnify the image circle (and do it perfectly, all TCs are not perfect regrettably), the resolution of the lens as measured in lp/mm falls in direct proportion to the magnification (and stays constant for the image circle as a whole, but we are using only part of it now). What helps a bit in counteracting the problem is that the crop of the lens image that you are effectively dealing with utilizes the full resolution of the sensor and the image resolution is of course a product of lens as well as sensor resolution.

Many lenses out-resolve sensors today, so magnifying the projection (by less than two) hardly tells on the quality of the image. From my experience at least, with TC's and lenses I used.

Even if the lens "outresolves" (has higher resolution than) the sensor (which is a tricky thing to decide, especially since the lens doesn't have any resolution unless you specify a contrast criterion), a loss of lens resolution affects the image resolution negatively. A good approximation of how lens and sensor resolution actually combine into image resolution is

1/i = sqrt(1/l^2 + 1/s^2)

where i is image resolution, l is sensor resolution, and s is sensor resolution.

Correction: I of course meant "l is lens resolution".

drj3 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

drj3 wrote:

DonSC wrote:

Thanks for the info. I was thinking that the differences in uprezzing the shorter focal length shot would be marginally better and you're confirming that. I'm just sort of marking time until the 300mm m.43 lens is released. The 50-200mm with TC would need an adapter as well, so I'd be looking at a lot more weight and bulk.

FYI I think the m.43 75-300 is adequate for BIFs. The big problem is that it simply can't produce local contrast aka detail. I'm sure you're right that you need good light for the PDAF, but that's true of all my Canon 1Ds as well. You see some folks shooting BIF with a 400mm f/5.6 but not really the 100-400mm. And at this focal length you don't get anything remotely as good as you would with a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8. it's a cruel world!

Sorry I cannot give you an example of a comparison between the EC14+50-200 and the 75-300, but the attached image may help. Maybe you can compare the feather detail of the attached Red Bellied Woodpecker (f7.1 - the closest I could find to the f6.7 of the 75-300) to ones that you have taken with the 75-300. I have not had very much opportunity to use it for BIFs, but my preliminary checks seem to show that it works better in portrait mode than landscape for BIFs (PDAF works better on vertical objects).

Certainly not bad. I don't have the 75-300 but I do have a 100-300 and my impression is that the 75-300 and the 100-300 are roughly on a par. So what about these, both available at full resolution for your pixel peeping pleasure (click on the image and then on "view original size" to see them properly). Are they inferior sharpness-wise?

Very nice. I like the close up of the face. Nice eyes.

The problem with lens comparisons is that one needs the same bird in the same place with the same lighting. My experience with my 50-200 and my inexpensive 70-300, is that both are capable of producing very good images in good light. Out of the camera EC14 +50-200 images are always better (sharper & more contrast), but if I take more time with PP with the 70-300, then the images are similar. When the light drops or is not good, then the differences in my lenses are more obvious and I cannot compensate with PP. The other big difference is that the 50-200 has mechanically linked focus (focus distance shown in lens widow - focus ring stops at 3.9 ft and infinity) which make pre-focusing (which I always do) easy and very fast so I can always pre-focus on the E-M1 even though there is no CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF on the camera (critical for BIFs).

All I know about the 75-300 and 100-300 mFT lenses is what I have read on the DPR forums and these lenses have the advantage of being smaller, lighter and less expensive. I would guess that the EC14+50-200 would be somewhat better than the 75-300, but it is also a $1000 more than the 75-300 (price of 50-200+EC14) and over 500 grams heavier.

I have no idea whether the mFT lenses or FT lens would be better for BIFs (after more experience and the spring thaw, I will have a better idea of how good the E-M1 is with FTs lenses). I can say that I believe that my E5 with the EC14+50-200 is better for BIFs than the E-M1 with the same lenses. However, I may be one of the few photographers that never had any problem with the E5 and BIFs, so maybe my E5 is better than most for BIFs.

Correct. If you can get close enough to a bird even with a 50mm lens, it will be darn sharp. That's why its hard to judge off images like these when compared.

When you take shots from a good long distance and then crop in, that's when the lenses tell a story and the sensor for that matter. Different lenses react differently to TC's as well. TC's can be funny things sometimes. Not only in image sharpness but also in CA, some are worse than others for sure. I gave up on 2x TC's quite awhile ago and just stick to 1.4x. You still can't beat extra fixed focal length though without TC's, plus the extra light without them.

The Oly 4/3 lenses from what I've seen are excellent !!. Seen many shots from from them in the Oly SLR forum with birds and BIF's, those lenses are top notch in the right hands.

All the best and nice shots here BTW, very nice.

Danny.

Iskender wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Iskender wrote:

The technical test which *would* be useful would be 50-200x1.4 versus the M43 zooms at the same magnification.

I have absolutely nothing against such tests inasmuch as this is a practical alternative we are facing: The 50-200 with TC versus the native long MFT zooms.

I was wrong about which approach you were suggesting, but you made it clear.

No problem with that. It could be interpreted both ways and I didn't make it all that clear which one I had in mind.

I won't argue about the other points, since we both see the value in a test of the actual options. The faster people go from testing to shooting, the better (here I'm pretty sure we disagree).

No problem with that either. While I think systematic testing sometimes settles things quicker than other approaches, I don't like to spend a minute more on testing than I actually need to get there.

The thing about the 50-200 TC tests which makes me sceptical is the fact that I see no guarantee that it would have actual photographic significance - but as I said I'll leave it, and admit it might be just me thinking that.

I think we agree that the more important test from a practical decision-making point of view is how the 50-200 with TC actually fares against other options with roughly the same reach (75-300, 100-300). But sometimes tests that do not seem immediately useful from such points of view may turn out to be helpful as well.